Stinson and Stinson

In *Stinson and Stinson*, heard before Cronin J, the dispute concerned applications made by the parties in family law proceedings. The wife sought to discharge certain orders made on 9 July 2012, while the husband had filed a response seeking interim orders on 18 June 2012.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the existing orders of 9 July 2012 should be discharged, and whether the husband's application for interim orders should be granted. The court was also required to consider the terms of acknowledgements to be executed by the wife and her solicitors.

Cronin J discharged paragraphs 1 to 4 of the orders made on 9 July 2012. The court further ordered that the wife forthwith execute an acknowledgement addressed to Mr Hunt and to the husband in specific terms, and that the wife's firm of solicitors execute a similar acknowledgement addressed to Mr Hunt. The husband's response seeking interim orders filed on 18 June 2012 was otherwise dismissed.